G.R. No. L-28554 - Unno Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. General Milling Corp.

Petitioner: Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (the insurer seeking recoupment as subrogee).
Respondent: Regis Brokerage Corp. (alleged liable for the loss).
Co-joined party (erroneously or incidentally): People’s Aircargo & Warehousing Corp. (“Paircargo”) which was involved as a party to the shipment but not crucial to the subrogation claim.

A shipment consisting of 120 pieces of motors was loaded by Fasco Motors Group onto China Airlines Flight 621 bound for Manila around February 1995.
The cargo, destined for ABB Koppel, Inc., was discharged at Ninoy Aquino International Airport and forwarded to the Paircargo warehouse for temporary storage pending customs release.
On March 7, 1995, Regis Brokerage Corp. withdrew and delivered the cargo to ABB Koppel’s warehouse.
Upon arrival, it was discovered that only 65 of the 120 motors had been delivered, leaving 55 motors (valued at US$2,374.35) unaccounted for.

The shipment was purportedly insured by Malayan on behalf of ABB Koppel.
After demand for payment was refused by Regis and Paircargo, Malayan disbursed P156,549.55 to ABB Koppel pursuant to its insurance agreement.
By paying ABB Koppel, Malayan acquired the right of subrogation to recover from the parties responsible for the loss.

Malayan filed a complaint for damages against Regis (and implicitly against Paircargo) with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 9.
In the trial, Malayan presented Marine Risk Note No. RN-0001-19832, dated March 21, 1995, as proof that the cargo was insured.
The MeTC rendered a decision finding Regis liable for the insured amount along with attorney’s fees and costs, a decision later partially affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Regis filed an appeal, prompting the Court of Appeals to reverse the RTC decision on December 23, 2005 and dismiss the complaint based on evidentiary deficiencies.
Malayan subsequently filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 challenging the Court of Appeals’ ruling, including a motion for reconsideration that was denied.

The Marine Risk Note was central to Malayan’s claim; however, it was obtained on March 21, 1995—after the loss had occurred (which happened in early February 1995).
Malayan contended that the risk note was merely a valuation determination supplementing an antecedent Marine Insurance Policy purportedly issued on January 20, 1995.
Despite the existence of the Marine Insurance Policy, it was not presented at trial or attached to the complaint, contrary to the procedural exigencies of Section 7, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Whether an insurer acting in a subrogation capacity may obtain favorable relief without having introduced in evidence the actual insurance contract or policy.
Whether the Marine Risk Note, issued after the loss was discovered, suffices to establish a valid insurance contract between Malayan and ABB Koppel for coverage of the shipment.
Whether the failure to attach and adequately present the Marine Insurance Policy in the complaint constitutes a fatal defect to the cause of action.
Whether Malayan’s attempt to rely on a document (“open policy” argument) as evidence of an insurance contract meets the mandatory requirements of Section 7, Rule 9, particularly in the context of appellate review where new evidence is inadmissible.